The safety and scientific validity of this study is the responsibility of the study sponsor and investigators. Listing a study does not mean it has been evaluated by the U.S. Federal Government.
Read our disclaimer for details.

Key information relevant to the recruitment process for the
overall study, such as dates of the recruitment period and locations

From February 2002 to May 2006, youth were screened at four academic sites: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, McLean Hospital and Cambridge Health Alliance at Harvard Medical School, University of Washington, and Case Western Reserve University.

Pre-Assignment Details

Significant events and approaches for the overall study
following participant enrollment, but prior to group assignment

Explanation of how the number of participants for analysis was determined.
Includes whether analysis was per protocol, intention to treat, or another method.
Also provides relevant details such as imputation technique, as appropriate.

We are referring to the population of participants who had baseline assessment, took at least one dose of trial medication, and had at least one post-baseline assessment. There were 3 randomized subjects, on in each treatment group, who did not take at least one dose of study medication and are not included.

The PANSS (described above) includes 7 items that reflect positive psychotic symptoms such as hallucinations and delusions. As are all items within the PANSS, items are categorically rated by the clinician between 0 - no symptoms to 7 extreme symptoms. The minimal score is 0 reflecting no positive symptoms to 49 reflecting that all items were extreme. Higher scores reflect more severe symptoms. Scores above 18 are usually clinically significant.

Time Frame

8 weeks

Population Description

Explanation of how the number of participants for analysis was determined.
Includes whether analysis was per protocol, intention to treat, or another method.
Also provides relevant details such as imputation technique, as appropriate.

All randomized patients who took at least one dose of drug and had at least one post-baseline assessment.

Limitations of the study, such as early termination leading to small numbers of participants
analyzed and technical problems with measurement leading to unreliable or uninterpretable data

The most significant weakness of this study was the sample size, which was sufficient only to detect large differences across the three treatments and limited our ability to identify predictors of response or adverse effects.